The High Court has determined that a former spouse, whose financial remedy proceedings were cut short by her ex-husband’s death, was entitled to the transfer of a disputed family home, ruling that the default laws of intestacy failed to make reasonable financial provision for her maintenance and housing needs.
Facts:
Jon Lamb, who died intestate in December 2021, and Naomi Davey were married for eighteen years and had a son together, William, for whom the claimant served as the primary carer following a move to Manchester in 2008. Although the couple divorced in 2019, matrimonial finance proceedings were still ongoing at the time of the deceased’s death, leaving the claimant without a final financial settlement. The estate was valued at approximately £331,122, a significant portion of which was a property in Southend-on-Sea.
A central factual dispute involved the beneficial ownership of this property, which was legally registered in the claimant’s sole name, although occupied by the deceased and his son, the first defendant. The defendants, the deceased’s children from other relationships, argued that the deceased had provided nearly the entire purchase price and intended to retain full ownership, while the claimant asserted the house was a gift to her. The Court found a mixed history of financial conduct, noting that, while the deceased had paid for the majority of the property and lived there, he had also continued to support the claimant through a joint bank account and ad hoc gifts, such as a car, well after their physical separation.
The claimant, now aged fifty and working as a waitress with limited earning potential and significant debts of around £61,000, argued that the Intestacy Rules—which would have distributed the entire estate among the deceased’s children—failed to make reasonable financial provision for her.
Decision:
The High Court ruled in favour of the claimant, granting her full ownership of the disputed family property. Before addressing the inheritance claim, the Court had to determine who actually owned the property in Princes Street. The Judge rejected both the claimant’s argument that she owned 100% as a gift and the defendants’ argument that the deceased owned 100% because he had paid for it. Taking a “holistic approach” to their 18-year marriage and financial conduct, the Judge ruled that the property was beneficially owned 50/50 by the claimant and the deceased’s estate.
The Judge ruled that the Intestacy Rules (which would have left the claimant with nothing) failed to make “reasonable financial provision” for her. The Court found that, despite the divorce, the claimant’s 18-year contribution as a wife and primary carer for their son, combined with her current financial hardship and the “unfortunate” timing of the deceased’s death during financial negotiations, created a moral and legal obligation for the estate to provide for her.
The Judge, however, refused the claimant’s additional request for a £50,000 lump sum, ruling that once her housing was secured, her earning potential as a waitress was sufficient to cover her daily maintenance.
Implications:
This case highlights the precarious position of a spouse when their partner dies before a financial order is finalised. In claims under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, the Court often applies a “divorce hypothesis,” looking at what the claimant would actually have received if the divorce had been completed.
The ruling provides a clear example of how legal ownership (i.e., the name on the deed) can be completely divorced from beneficial ownership (who truly “owns” the value). Even though Ms. Davey was the sole legal owner, she was not automatically the 100% beneficial owner. By finding a 50/50 split, the Court reaffirmed that when a property is purchased in a “domestic context,” judges will look at the “whole course of dealing,” including who lived there, who renovated it, and who paid for it, rather than just the names listed at the Land Registry.
Finally, the ruling proves that the Intestacy Rules (the default laws for when someone dies without a will) are not a shield against claims. Even if the law says the children should inherit everything, the 1975 Act allows the Court to “rewrite” the distribution if the outcome is a lack of reasonable provision.
